THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1 : 2023 INSC 661 
1
CASE DETAILS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1162-1171 of 2016)
AUGUST 01, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Issue pertains to constitutionality of rr. 4(10) 
and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as regards 
restriction on grant and renewal of mining leases, and the procedure for grant 
of lease; whether the High Court misconstrued the issues ignoring the power 
of the State Government to make Rules in respect of minor minerals u/s. 15 
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and 
whether there is a right vested over an application made which is pending 
seeking lease of a Government land or over the minerals beneath the soil 
in any type of land.
Mines and minerals – Grant of mining leases – Vested right/
preferential rights of certain persons:
Held : Applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of 
license of a mineral unless facilitated by a statute – There is no right vested 
over an application  pending seeking lease of a Government land or minerals 
over which the Government has a vested right and regulatory control – 
Mere fi ling of an application ipso facto does not create any right – When a 
decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a 
better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease 
over a Government land disappears on its own – Rajasthan Minor Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 7(3). [Para 17]
Mines and minerals – Mining leases – Invocation of doctrine of 
legitimate expectation – On basis of pending application:
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Held : Legitimate expectation is a weak and sober right as ordained 
by a statute – When the Government decides to introduce fair play by way 
of auction facilitating all eligible persons to contest on equal terms, he is not 
entitled for a lease merely on the basis of a pending application – Right being 
not legal, apart from being non-existent, it cannot be enforceable. [Para 19]
Mines and minerals – Mining leases – Fundamental right in 
mining:
Held : There is no fundamental right in mining. [Para 18]
Mines and minerals – Mining leases – New amended Rules – Legal 
malice in amendments:
Held : Impugned Rules have not been brought forth only to nullify 
the eff ect of the judgments – Basis of a judgment can be removed and a 
decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when 
power is available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest 
– Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed – In view thereof, 
no legal malice in the amendments – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession 
Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 7(3).[Para 21]
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – rr. 4(10) and 
7(3) – Constitutionality of:
Held : Amendments made to the Rules – Issuance of Notifi cation 
introducing amendments – All pending applications for leasing out minor 
minerals on fi rst-come fi rst-serve basis declared as rejected while facilitating 
grant of 50% of the leases through auction except for the categories entitled 
for preference – Division Bench of the High Court declared the amendments 
as illegal on the grounds that the applicants have not been heard, and their 
applications ought to be revived in view of the earlier orders passed by the 
court on the principle of legitimate expectation and rights having vested in 
them – High Court misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a 
delegation of power to the appellant which was rightly exercised – There 
is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a 
Government land – Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing 
an amendment by an authority competent to do so – Thus, the impugned 
judgment set aside – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 
Act, 1957. [Paras 22 and 23]
3
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone & Others (1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 
2 SCR 742; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 11 SCC 
1 : [2012] 7 SCR 644; Kerala State Beverages (M AND M) Corporation 
Limited v. P.P. Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710 : [2019] 17 SCR 164; Kalabharati 
Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 : [2010] 
10 SCR 971 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.